This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 36/10/2181    most recent 01.STR.0000181755.23914.53v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McCullagh, E. Articles by Kalra, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McCullagh, E. Articles by Kalra, L. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Behavioral/psychosocial - stroke Rehabilitation, Stroke

(Stroke. 2005;36:2181.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Determinants of Caregiving Burden and Quality of Life in Caregivers of Stroke Patients

From the Department of Stroke Medicine (E.M., G.B., L.K.), Guy’s, King’s, and St Thomas’s School of Medicine, King’s College, London, UK; and the Department of Biostatistics (N.D.), King’s and St Thomas’s School of Medicine, King’s College, London, UK.

Correspondence to Lalit Kalra, Department of Medicine, Guy’s, King’s, and St Thomas’s School of Medicine, Denmark Hill Campus, Bessemer Rd, London SE5 9PJ, UK. E-mail lalit.kalra{at}kcl.ac.uk

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
Background and Purpose— A large proportion of disabled stroke survivors live at home and are supported by informal caregivers. Identification of determinants of caregiver burden will help to target caregiver interventions.

Methods— Data on patient, caregiver, and health and social support characteristics were collected prospectively over 1 year in 232 stroke survivors in a randomized trial of caregiver training. The contribution of these variables to caregiver burden score (CBS) and quality of life (QOL) measures at 3 months and 1 year was analyzed using regression models.

Results— Stroke patients had a mean age of 74±11 years, and 120 (52%) were men. The mean age of caregivers was 65.7±12.5 years, 149 (64%) were females, and 116 (50%) had received caregiver training. The mean CBS was 48±13 and 38±11 (score range of bad to good 88 to 22) and QOL score was 75±16 and 75±15 (score range of bad to good 0 to 100) at 3 months and 1 year, respectively. CBS and QOL correlated with each other and with patient (age, dependency, and mood), caregiver (age, gender, mood, and training), and support (social services and family networks) variables. Of these, only patient and caregiver emotional status, caregiver age and gender, and participation in caregiver training were independent predictors of either outcome at 3 months. Patient dependency and family support were additional independent predictors at 1 year. Social services support predicted institutionalization but not caregiver outcomes.

Conclusion— Advancing age and anxiety in patients and caregivers, high dependency, and poor family support identify caregivers at risk of adverse outcomes, which may be reduced by caregiver training.

Key Words: caregivers • quality of life • rehabilitation • stroke • stroke management • stroke outcome

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
Stroke rehabilitation has concentrated successfully on patient-focused interventions to reduce severe disability and institutionalization, which has resulted in increasing the number of disabled patients being managed at home.^1,2 Recent years have seen increasing awareness of the role of caregivers in the long-term management of stroke patients, and there is growing literature on the caregiving burden, poor caregiver outcomes, lack of caregiver support, and equivocal success, with interventions aimed at alleviating the caregiving burden.^2–5 It is also becoming clear that the emphasis in stroke rehabilitation needs to shift from a patient-focused approach to a combined patient- and caregiver-focused approach because these individuals are central in preserving rehabilitation gains and the long-term well-being of stroke survivors.^4,5 However, the success of early attempts to support caregivers has been limited, largely because the determinants of caregiving burden and the needs of caregivers remain poorly understood.⁶ Little research has been devoted toward understanding the complex and multilayered phenomenon of caregiving, beyond patient dependence and the emotional or psychological aspects of caregiving after stroke.^4–10 Very few studies have investigated the interactions between patient characteristics, caregiver attributes, and support mechanisms, which eventually determine burden of care and quality of life (QOL) experienced by caregivers.^11,12 Furthermore, literature on longitudinal changes in caregiver perceptions of burden and QOL is conflicting and suggests that these outcomes and their determinants may vary between the acute and chronic phases of stroke.^8,12,13 There is no study that has systematically investigated how patient, caregiver, and support determinants contribute to changing perceptions of caregiver burden and QOL at different time points after stroke in a large sample. This information is important because strategies directed at caregivers are likely to be more successful if they target modifiable determinants of the caregiving burden and address specific caregiver needs.¹⁴ Knowledge of these determinants would also help to identify caregivers most at risk of poor outcomes and deliver specific interventions at the appropriate time.^4,8–10

The objective of this study was to identify patient, caregiver, and support characteristics that influence caregiving burden, caregiver QOL, and institutionalization in the first year after stroke.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
Subjects
The study was undertaken in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation and their caregivers participating in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of caregiver training on a stroke rehabilitation unit.¹⁴ Patients were included if they were independent in daily living activities before the stroke (defined as Rankin score [RS] of 0 to 2), medically and neurologically stable at the time of baseline assessments, and expected to return home with residual disability (defined as the need for supervision or physical assistance for core activities of daily living). All participants were required to have caregivers with no significant disability (defined as RS of 0 to 2) who were willing and able to provide support after discharge from hospital. The study was approved by the Bromley Research Ethics Committee.

Assessments
Data were collected prospectively for patient, caregiver, and support characteristics. Baseline assessments were performed at the time of inclusion into the RCT, which was within 10 days of stroke onset. Patient data included age, gender, estimated premorbid modified RS, and Barthel Index (BI) at the time of inclusion (Table 1).¹⁵ Patients were graded as mild (BI score 15 to 20), moderate (BI score 8 to 14), and severe (BI score 0 to 8) disability on the basis of initial Barthel scores.¹⁶ Caregiver assessments included age, gender, relationship to the patient, presence of any illness or disability, and 5D Euroqol (EQ-5D) and the Euroqol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS)¹⁷ for QOL. The number of caregivers participating in a structured training program that provided basic nursing and personal care skills, essential for the day to day management of disabled stroke survivors, was recorded. Support characteristics included family support network,¹⁸ community health input, and social services support. Data on therapy provision were recorded prospectively by treating therapists. Data on community health and social services use were collected at 3 and 12 months during patient assessment interviews using the Client Service Receipt Inventory.¹⁹ The completeness and accuracy of these data were verified against records of service providers.

Follow-up assessments were undertaken at 3 and 12 months after stroke onset. Variables of primary interest were caregiver burden and caregiver QOL, assessed using the caregiver burden score (CBS) and Euroqol VAS scales, respectively. CBS measures general strain (items 1 to 8), isolation (items 9 to 11), disappointment (items 12 to 16), emotional involvement (items 17 to 19), and environment (items 20 to 22), which together encompass important domains of the caregiving burden.²⁰ These items are all scored from 1 to 4 (not at all, seldom, sometimes, often). The reliability, sensitivity, and various aspects of validity have been established in stroke patients and caregivers.²⁰ Other measurements undertaken were institutionalization, RS, and BI in patients and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)^21,22 and EQ-5D/VAS in patients and caregivers. The HADS is commonly used in stroke research and has been validated against other instruments of emotional morbidity.²² It comprises 14 questions, of which half make up the anxiety subscale and half the depression subscale. Response options include "not at all," "occasionally," "quite often," and "very often," which are scored 0, 1, 2, or 3. A higher number indicates a more negative response, and a score of >8 is considered indicative of need for further assessment.

Assessments were undertaken by a researcher not involved in randomization or patient care. Patients and caregivers were interviewed separately whenever possible; participants were encouraged to self-complete questionnaires without prompts, but caregivers were allowed to assist patients, if required.

Data Analysis
Descriptive data are presented as proportions, means, or medians as appropriate. Patient, caregiver, and support characteristics were correlated with CBS, caregiver Euroqol score, and patient institutionalization at 3 months and 1 year. Because the domains of EQ-5D (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain and anxiety, and depression) were replicated in other assessments (eg, Barthel, RS, HADS in patients and HADS and CBS in caregivers), which were more sensitive to change than EQ-5D, this measure was not used further in analysis. Variables with P0.10 and those that were considered clinically relevant were investigated further by constructing multiple regression models for 3 months and 1-year outcomes in 3 stages. In the first stage, the independent effects of patient characteristics and the extent to which these variables explained variation in outcomes was assessed. In the second stage, caregiver characteristics were added to the model and their impact on primary measures assessed after adjusting for patient characteristics. In the third stage, the independent effect on support characteristics was assessed after adjusting for patient and caregiver characteristics.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
Complete data sets at 1 year were available for 232 (77%) of the 300 stroke patients and their caregivers included in the original study. Reasons for incomplete data included mortality (n=32), patients or caregiver unable or unwilling to complete assessments (n=28), and incorrectly filled out or illegible forms (n=8).

The mean age of patients was 74 years; half were men, and all were independent before stroke (Table 1). The baseline BI score for the majority of patients ranged between 4 and 14, consistent with moderate to severe disability.¹⁶ Most patients improved significantly by 3 months (median BI increased from 9 to 18.5; P=0.013). By the end of 1 year, there were further improvements in the BI, significant reductions in patients’ anxiety and depression levels from median HADS-A, and HADS-D scores of 7.0 and 5.0, respectively, at 3 months to HADS-A and HADS-D scores of 4.0 and 3.0 at 1 year (P<0.0001 for both), and improvements in QOL (median EQ-VAS change from 54 to 61; P=0.0002). A total of 226 (97%) patients were residents at home 1 year after stroke.

The mean age of the caregivers was 65.7 years, who, on average, were 10 years younger than patients (Table 1). More than 90% of caregivers were immediate family members, and nearly two thirds of caregivers were women, the majority of whom were spouse or partner. Of these, 50% had received formal training in caregiving during hospital rehabilitation of the patient. Caregiver anxiety and depression levels of caregivers reduced significantly between 3 months and 1 year (P<0.0001 for HADS-A and HADS-D). CBS also decreased significantly between 3 months and 1 year (48.2 versus 38.3; P<0.0001). Caregiver EQ-VAS scores did not change significantly between 3 and 12 months.

Frequent support from local family or friends was avai1able for 69 of 232 (29%) subjects; 17 (8%) subjects had no local family but were supported by family members living in different towns.¹⁷ The majority of subjects, 146 of 232 (62%), were isolated in the community with limited informal support from family or friends. Although all patients received some form of community support after discharge, there were great variations in the type and the intensity of community health and social services use between patients (Table 2).

Pearson correlations showed a significant inverse relationship between caregiver burden and caregiver QOL (r=–0.33; P<0.001). Caregiver burden at 3 and 12 months correlated significantly with increased patient disability, anxiety, and depression. It also correlated positively with caregiver anxiety and depression but showed significant reduction after caregiver training (Table 3). There was no correlation with patient or caregiver age, gender, or relationship to the patient. Caregiver burden did not correlate with the family support or no support but was greater in those receiving therapy and day care input, probably reflecting the severity of residual disability. Caregiver burden was less at 1 year in patients receiving domiciliary care input. Caregiver QOL at 3 and 12 months correlated with the same patient and caregiver variables as caregiver burden (Table 3). In addition, there was a negative correlation between caregiver QOL and patient and caregiver age and increasing burden of caregiving. Institutionalization from home at the end of 1 year correlated with severity of residual disability and patient anxiety and depression but not with caregiver or support characteristics.

Multiple regression models showed that patient and caregiver anxiety were the only significant independent determinants of caregiver burden at 3 months and were equally important and explained 50% of caregiver burden at this time point (Table 4). At 1 year, caregiver depression and family support or no support also became important independent determinants of caregiver burden. Caregiver training had an independent effect on reducing caregiver burden, regardless of other patient and caregiver characteristics. Patient disability, increasing age of caregiver, and lesser personal care input from social services were independent determinants of institutionalization from home within 1 year of stroke. Independent determinants of poor caregiver QOL at 3 months included increasing caregiver age, male gender, and disability (Table 4). By the end of 1 year, the patient disability and caregiver depression became additional determinants of caregiver QOL. Participation in caregiver training was associated with better QOL at 3 months and 1 year. The addition of caregiver characteristics nearly doubled the explanatory power of models for most caregiver outcomes. Addition of support variables increased the prediction of institutionalization significantly but did not add significantly to other outcome models.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
This study showed that caregiver burden in the immediate aftermath of stroke was determined by patient and caregiver anxiety rather than by the level of disability, age, gender, or support from family or social services. Caregiving burden and patients’ and caregivers’ anxiety levels decreased with time, despite no significant changes in patients’ dependence or support levels, suggesting a response shift toward normalization with time. At 1 year, caregiver depression and lack of family support became additional determinants of the caregiving burden. Institutionalization was determined by caregiver age, patient disability and level of social services support available. Caregivers had a better QOL compared with patients, but unlike patients, their QOL did not improve over 1 year. Caregiver QOL had a significant inverse corelationship with caregiver burden and correlated with the same patient and caregiver variables as caregiver burden. In addition, caregiver QOL was adversely influenced by patient disability and caregivers’ age, male gender, and physical health. Social services support had little effect on caregiver burden or QOL but reduced the need for institutional care. Training caregivers in the management of disabled patients reduced caregiver burden and improved their QOL but had no effect on institutionalization.

Caregiving is a complex and multidimensional activity, the nature and determinants of which evolve over time. The study showed that despite a significant interaction between caregiver burden and caregiver QOL, there was a divergence at the end of 1 year with improvements in caregiver burden but not in caregiver QOL. This may be explained partly by the limitations of current measures of caregiver burden to capture the interactions between caregiving burden and the supporting capacity of the caregiver, which, if exceeded, may result in poorer QOL.²³ Another possible explanation is the transition in caregiver experience as caregivers adapt to their new role and factors such as advancing age, level of disability, depression, and family support become important. Studies have shown that the awareness of a relative/loved one in ill health, changing roles, obligations, decreasing support, and changed life perspectives are associated with feelings of inadequacy and depression, which have adverse effects on QOL unrelated to caregiving burden.²⁴

A limitation of the study is that it was limited to willing caregivers participating in a randomized controlled study. Selection criteria would have excluded patients with severe disability or cognitive impairments; most patients made significant physical recovery, and all caregivers were in good health. This may explain why variables such as patient disability, cognitive impairments, and patients’ or caregivers’ health, found to be significant in studies on caregivers of severely disabled patients,^4,9,13,25 were not independent predictors of caregiver burden in this study. These factors make substantial difference in the level of caregiving burden and need to be considered in caregiver risk assessment. A weakness of the study is that the number of patients who required help from caregivers to fill in questionnaires was not recorded. Similar methods have been used previously and are often necessary in pragmatic studies in disabled subjects.^26–28 Despite the fact that all patients received appropriate levels of community and social services input at discharge based on objective assessments during rehabilitation, patients’ and caregivers’ perceptions of adequacy of this support may have influenced caregiver burden as well as caregiver QOL but was not measured in this study.

Anxiety and depression are common in stroke patients and their caregivers and determine caregiving burden.^{4,7,8–10,13} Studies show that social services support or interventions aimed at the emotional support of caregivers have little effect on reducing this burden.^12,26–29 However, "hands on" training in the day to day management of stroke patients was associated with lower anxiety and burden of care levels.¹⁴ This suggests that a shift in rehabilitation philosophy for a patient-centered approach to a patient- and caregiver-centered approach, which empowers caregivers, may have better long-term outcomes. It is also important that assessments of rehabilitation interventions in clinical practice or research include measures of patient and caregiver outcomes in evaluating effectiveness. Whereas considerable advances have been made in the development of patient-centered measures, there are no instruments at present that reliably capture all important dimensions of the caregiving experience.²³ It is possible a self-rated instrument, in which the domains are determined by caregivers themselves, may provide more relevant information than existing instruments.²³

Caregiving is a multilayered concept and involves several aspects of human behavior, which cannot be encapsulated in simplistic models based on measurable physical, psychological, or social variables. Despite a range of patient, caregiver, and support variables being considered in this study, regression models could not predict >50% of caregiver outcomes. Other quantitative and qualitative studies have shown similar limitations in developing paradigms that accurately predict caregiver needs. Although caregiving will always be influenced by a range of subjective factors (eg, coping ability, personal beliefs, and social expectations), clinicians need some objective measures to identify those at risk of adverse outcomes. This study suggests that high physical dependence, advancing age, and increased anxiety in caregivers or patients and poor family support are simple and easily assessable measures of caregiver risk, which can be used in clinical practice to target caregiver interventions.

	Acknowledgments

 
The project was supported by the NHS R&D Executive’s Primary Secondary Interface Priority Programme (Project No. F-4/1997).

Received April 15, 2005; revision received June 15, 2005; accepted July 5, 2005.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion References

 
1. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002; 1: CD000197.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

2. Anderson CS, Linto J, Stewart-Wynne EG. A population based assessment of the impact and burden of care-giving for long-term stroke survivors. Stroke. 1995; 26: 843–849.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3. Han B, Haley W. Family caregiving for patients with stroke, review and analysis. Stroke. 1999; 30: 1478–1485.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Blake H, Lincoln NB, Clarke DD. Caregiver strain in spouses of stroke patients. Clin Rehabil. 2003; 17: 312–317.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

5. Low JT, Payne S, Roderick P. The impact of stroke on informal caregivers: a literature review. Soc Sci Med. 1999; 49: 711–725.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

6. Scholte op Reimer WJM, de Haan RJ, Pijnenborg JMA, Limburg M, van den Bos GAM. Assessment of burden in partners of stroke patients with the sense of competence questionnaire. Stroke. 1998; 29: 373–379.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7. Smith LN, Norrie J, Kerr SM, Lawrence IM, Langhorne P, Lees KR. Impact and influences on caregiver outcomes at one year post-stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004; 18: 145–153.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

8. Jonsson AC, Lindgren I, Hallstrom B, Norrving B, Lindgren A. Determinants of quality of life in stroke survivors and their informal caregivers. Stroke. 2005; 36: 803–808.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, van den Berg B, Brouwer WB, van den Bos GA. Burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients. Identification of caregivers at risk of adverse health effects. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005; 19: 11–17.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

10. Berg A, Palomaki H, Lonnqvist J, Lehtihalmes M, Kaste M. Depression among caregivers of stroke survivors. Stroke. 2005; 36: 639–643.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

11. Hodgson SP, Wood VA, Langton-Hewer R. Identification of stroke carers "at risk": a preliminary study of the predictors of carers’ psychological well-being at one year post-stroke. Clin Rehabil. 1996; 10: 337–346.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

12. Bugge C, Alexander H, Hagen S. Stroke patients’ informal caregivers. Patient, caregiver, and service factors that affect caregiver strain. Stroke. 1999; 30: 1517–1523.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. Forsberg-Warleby G, Moller A, Blomstrand C. Psychological well-being of spouses of stroke patients during the first year after stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2004; 18: 430–437.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

14. Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, Melbourn A, Patel A, Knapp M, Donaldson N. Training carers of stroke patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004; 328: 1099–1101.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

15. Wade DT. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1992.

16. Wade DT, Langton-Hewer R. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 1987; 50: 177–182.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

17. The Euroqol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990; 16: 199–208.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

18. Wenger GC, Tucker I. Using network variation in practice: identification of support network type. Health Soc Care Community. 2002; 10: 28–35.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

19. Beecham J, Knapp M. Costing psychiatric interventions. In: Thornicroft G, Brewin C, Wing J, eds. Measuring Mental Health Needs. London, UK: Gaskell; 1992.

20. Elmstahl S, Malmberg B, Annerstedt L. Caregiver’s burden of patients 3 years after stroke assessed by a novel caregiver burden scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996; 77: 177–182.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

21. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1983; 67: 361–370.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

22. O’Rourke S, MacHale S, Signorini D, Dennis M. Detecting psychiatric morbidity after stroke: comparison of the GHQ and the HAD Scale. Stroke. 1998; 29: 980–985.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

23. van Exel NJ, Brouwer WB, van den Berg B, Koopmanschap MA, van den Bos GA. What really matters: an inquiry into the relative importance of dimensions of informal caregiver burden. Clin Rehabil. 2004; 18: 683–693.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24. Brouwer WB, van Exel NJ, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. The valuation of informal care in economic appraisal. A consideration of individual choice and societal costs of time. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999; 15: 147–160.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

25. van den Heuvel ET, de Witte LP, Schure LM, Sanderman R, Meyboom-de Jong B. Risk factors for burn-out in caregivers of stroke patients, and possibilities for intervention. Clin Rehabil. 2001; 15: 669–677.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

26. Forster A, Young J. Specialist nurse support for patients with stroke in the community: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1996; 312: 1642–1646.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

27. Dennis M, O’Rourke S, Slattery J, Staniforth T, Warlow C. Evaluation of a stroke family care worker: results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1997; 314: 1071–1077.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

28. Mant J, Carter C, Wade DT, Winner S. Family support for stroke: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000; 356: 808–813.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

29. Friedland JF, McColl M. Social support interventions after stroke: results of a randomised trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992; 73: 573–581.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. L. O'Sullivan Support for families coping with stroke or dementia: special considerations for emergency management Radiat Prot Dosimetry, June 1, 2009; 134(3-4): 197 - 201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. E. Haley, J. Y. Allen, J. S. Grant, O. J. Clay, M. Perkins, and D. L. Roth Problems and Benefits Reported by Stroke Family Caregivers: Results From a Prospective Epidemiological Study Stroke, June 1, 2009; 40(6): 2129 - 2133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Visser-Meily, M. Post, I. van de Port, C. Maas, G. Forstberg-Warleby, and E. Lindeman Psychosocial Functioning of Spouses of Patients With Stroke From Initial Inpatient Rehabilitation to 3 Years Poststroke: Course and Relations With Coping Strategies Stroke, April 1, 2009; 40(4): 1399 - 1404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. M. Nelson, M. A. Smith, B. C. Martinson, A. Kind, and R. V. Luepker Declining Patient Functioning and Caregiver Burden/Health: The Minnesota Stroke Survey-Quality of Life After Stroke Study Gerontologist, October 1, 2008; 48(5): 573 - 583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Zauszniewski, A. K. Bekhet, and M. J. Suresky Factors Associated With Perceived Burden, Resourcefulness, and Quality of Life in Female Family Members of Adults With Serious Mental Illness Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, May 1, 2008; 14(2): 125 - 135. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Brereton, C. Carroll, and S. Barnston Interventions for adult family carers of people who have had a stroke: a systematic review Clinical Rehabilitation, October 1, 2007; 21(10): 867 - 884. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. A. DePalma Update on Evidence: Family Caregivers in the Home Home Health Care Management Practice, April 1, 2007; 19(3): 206 - 208. [PDF]

				G. Batson and J. E. Deutsch Effects of Feldenkrais Awareness Through Movement on Balance in Adults With Chronic Neurological Deficits Following Stroke: A Preliminary Study Complementary Health Practice Review, October 1, 2005; 10(3): 203 - 210. [Abstract] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 36/10/2181    most recent 01.STR.0000181755.23914.53v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McCullagh, E. Articles by Kalra, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McCullagh, E. Articles by Kalra, L. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Behavioral/psychosocial - stroke Rehabilitation, Stroke